You are here: / / SUPPORT MAGISTRATE DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO REDUCE FATHER’S CHILD...
,

SUPPORT MAGISTRATE DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO REDUCE FATHER’S CHILD SUPPORT BY DISTRIBUTING A TAX REFUND (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the Support Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to reduce father’s child support by distributing a tax refund:

We agree with the mother, however, that the court erred in denying her … objection to that part of the Support Magistrate’s order that, in effect, distributed half of the parties’ tax refund to the father by reducing his child support obligation by that amount. We have previously stated that “the jurisdiction of Family Court is generally limited to matters pertaining to child support and custody . . . , and tax deductions or exemptions are not an element of support”… . “[T]he father’s entitlement to claim the child[ren] as [] dependent[s] for income tax purposes is not an element of support set forth in Family Court Act article 4, and thus the court lacks jurisdiction” to distribute the parties’ tax refund … . Therefore, … we remit the matter to Family Court to recalculate the father’s child support obligation without regard to the parties’ income tax refund. Matter of Bashir v Brunner, 2019 NY Slip Op 00746, Fourth Dept 2-1-19

 

You might also like
PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CALL WITNESSES, NEW HEARING ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
Housing for Actors and Theater Staff Deemed Tax-Exempt
MOTHER ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER A CHANGE IN HER CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTED A RETURN OF HER CHILDREN; CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN AWARDED TO RESPONDENT (GREAT AUNT) (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH BEING STRUCK BY A MISHIT BALL IS AN INHERENT RISK IN A GOLF GAME WHICH IS SUBJECT TO THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE, THERE WAS EVIDENCE DEFENDANT DELIBERATELY HIT THE BALL IN A MANNER THAT UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE RISK OF STRIKING PLAINTIFF (FOURTH DEPT).
JUROR NEVER STATED SHE COULD PUT ASIDE HER BIAS IN FAVOR OF POLICE OFFICERS, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
CORPORATE OFFICER MAY BE PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR WRONGFUL EVICTION PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 853 (FOURTH DEPT).
POLICE REPORT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED AND WAS NOT SUBMITTED IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, THEREFORE IT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS CAR-BICYCLE ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SHE WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN NOT SEEING WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE... STATEMENTS MADE BY THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE CONCERNING HER DECISION TO FIRE PLAINTIFF,...